Christophe Biocca wrote:

> it becomes trivial with a few tries to split the network into two
> halves: (tx1 before tx2, tx2 before tx1).

"before" implies T=0.  That is a much too optimistic choice for T; 50% 
of nodes would misidentify the respend.

> Tom Harding <> wrote:
>>    - Eventually, node adds a consensus rule:
>>       Do not accept blocks containing a transaction tx2 where
>>           - tx2 respends an output spent by another locally accepted
>> transaction tx1, and
>>           - timestamp(tx2) - timestamp(tx1) > T

Is your legacy SCM system holding you back? Join Perforce May 7 to find out:
&#149; 3 signs your SCM is hindering your productivity
&#149; Requirements for releasing software faster
&#149; Expert tips and advice for migrating your SCM now
Bitcoin-development mailing list

Reply via email to